Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 tests costs and reimbursement tariffs readjustments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: While laboratories have been facing limited supplies of reagents for diagnostic tests throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, national and international health plans, as well as billing costs, have been constantly adjusted in order to optimize the use of resources. We aimed to assess the impact of SARS-CoV-2 test costs and reimbursement tariff adjustments on diagnostic strategies in Switzerland to determine the advantages and disadvantages of different costs and resource saving plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We specifically assessed the cost of diagnostic SARS-COV-2 RT-PCR using five different approaches: i) in-house platform, ii) cobas 6800® (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), iii) GeneXpert® SARS-CoV-2 test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), iv) VIASURE SARS-CoV-2 (N1 + N2) Real-Time PCR Detection Kit for BD MAX™ (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lake, NJ, USA), v) cobas® Liat® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B (Roche, Basel, Switzerland). We compared these costs to the evolution of the reimbursement tariffs. RESULTS: The cost of a single RT-PCR test varied greatly (as did the volume of tests performed), ranging from as high as 180 CHF per test at the beginning of the pandemic (February to April 2020) to as low as 82 CHF per test at the end of 2020. Depending on the time period within the pandemic, higher costs did not necessarily mean greater benefits for the laboratories. The costs of molecular reagents for rapid tests were higher than of those for classic RT-PCR platforms, but the rapid tests had reduced turnaround times (TATs), thus improving patient care and enabling more efficient implementation of isolation measures, as well as reducing the burden of possible nosocomial infections. At the same time, there were periods when the production or distribution of these reagents was insufficient, and only the use of several different molecular platforms allowed us to sustain the high number of tests requested. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-saving plans need to be thoroughly assessed and constantly adjusted according to the epidemiological situation, the clinical context and the national resources in order to always guarantee that the highest performing diagnostic solutions are available. Not all cost-saving strategies guarantee good analytical performance.

Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Testing and RT-PCR Performed on Nasopharyngeal Swabs versus Saliva Samples in COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients: Results of a Prospective Comparative Trial (RESTART).

Saliva sampling could serve as an alternative non-invasive sample for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis while rapid antigen tests (RATs) might help to mitigate the shortage of reagents sporadically encountered with RT-PCR. Thus, in the RESTART study we compared antigen and RT-PCR testing methods on nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and salivary samples. We conducted a prospective observational study among COVID-19 hospitalized patients between 10 December 2020 and 1 February 2021. Paired saliva and NP samples were investigated by RT-PCR (Cobas 6800, Roche-Switzerland, Basel, Switzerland) and by two rapid antigen tests: One Step Immunoassay Exdia® COVID-19 Ag (Precision Biosensor, Daejeon, Korea) and Standard Q® COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche-Switzerland). A total of 58 paired NP-saliva specimens were collected. A total of 32 of 58 (55%) patients were hospitalized in the intensive care unit, and the median duration of symptoms was 11 days (IQR 5-19). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivity of 98% and 69% respectively, whereas the specificity of these RT-PCRs assays was 100%. The NP RATs exhibited much lower diagnostic performance, with sensitivities of 35% and 41% for the Standard Q® and Exdia® assays, respectively, when a wet-swab approach was used (i.e., when the swab was diluted in the viral transport medium (VTM) before testing). The sensitivity of the dry-swab approach was slightly better (47%). These antigen tests exhibited very low sensitivity (4% and 8%) when applied to salivary swabs. Nasopharyngeal RT-PCR is the most accurate test for COVID-19 diagnosis in hospitalized patients. RT-PCR on salivary samples may be used when nasopharyngeal swabs are contraindicated. RATs are not appropriate for hospitalized patients.

Performance of RT-PCR on Saliva Specimens Compared With Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Children: A Prospective Comparative Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Saliva reverse transcriptase-Polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is an attractive alternative for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in adults with less known in children. METHODS: Children with coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms were prospectively enrolled in a 1-month comparative clinical trial of saliva and nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR. Detection rates and sensitivities of saliva and NP RT-PCR were compared as well as discordant NP and saliva RT-PCR findings including viral loads (VLs). RESULTS: Of 405 patients enrolled, 397 patients had 2 tests performed. Mean age was 12.7 years (range, 1.2-17.9). Sensitivity of saliva was 85.2% (95% confidence interval: 78.2%-92.1%) when using NP as the standard; sensitivity of NP was 94.5% (89.8%-99.2%) when saliva was considered as the standard. For a NP RT-PCR VL threshold of ≥103 and ≥104 copies/mL, sensitivity of saliva increases to 88.7% and 95.2%, respectively. Sensitivity of saliva and NP swabs was, respectively, 89.5% and 95.3% in patient with symptoms less than 4 days (P = 0.249) and 70.0% and 95.0% in those with symptoms ≥4-7 days (P = 0.096). The 15 patients who had an isolated positive NP RT-PCR were younger (P = 0.034), had lower NP VL (median 5.6 × 103 vs. 3.9 × 107, P < 0.001), and could not drool saliva at the end of the sampling (P = 0.002). VLs were lower with saliva than with NP RT-PCR (median 8.7 cp/mL × 104; interquartile range 1.2 × 104-5.2 × 105; vs. median 4.0 × 107 cp/mL; interquartile range, 8.6 × 105-1 × 108; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While RT-PCR testing on saliva performed more poorly in younger children and likely after longer duration of symptoms, saliva remains an attractive alternative to NP swabs in children.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on a high-throughput molecular diagnostic platform and the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test for the diagnostic of COVID-19 on various clinical samples.

OBJECTIVES: In order to cope with the rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, we introduced on our in-house high-throughput molecular diagnostic platform (MDx Platform) a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) to detect the SARS-CoV-2 from any clinical specimens. The aim of this study was to compare the RT-PCR results obtain with the MDx Platform and the commercial assay cobas SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) on nasopharyngeal swab and other clinical specimens including sputum, bronchial aspirate, bronchoalveolar lavage and anal swabs. METHODS: Samples received in our laboratory from patients suspected of COVID-19 (n = 262) were tested in parallel with our MDx platform SARS-CoV-2 PCR and with the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test. RESULTS: The overall agreement between the two tests for all samples tested was 99.24% (260/262), which corresponded to agreements of 100% (178/178) on nasopharyngeal swabs, 95.45% (42/44) on lower respiratory tract specimen with discordant resultS obtained for very high cycle threshold (Ct) value and 100% (40/40) on anorectal swabs. The Ct values for nasopharyngeal swabs displayed an excellent correlation (R2 > 96%) between both tests. CONCLUSIONS: The high agreements between the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test and the MDx platform supports the use of both methods for the diagnostic of COVID-19 on various clinical samples. Very few discrepant results may occur at very low viral load.